KS: Kansas judge finds offender registry ‘punitive’

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas judge has ordered law enforcement agencies to remove a man’s name from the state’s offender registry, saying an amended law ostracizes offenders and requires them to remain registered longer than necessary.

Tuesday’s decision by Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks addressed only the case of the man who sued to end his registering requirement, but it could extend to others in his situation if the state Supreme Court upholds it upon appeal. High courts in other states have struck down similar registration laws that have been found to be too excessive. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The tide is slowly turning…

Well, this is just trial court. We will have to see if this is upheld on appeal.

But I note, this is based on the requirements of Kansas’ SOR law. That requires notably more information, and for it to be reported more frequently and on an even tighter deadline that California’s, and thee SOR status is marked on their driver’s license, so every time you have to show that, the person you show it to sees that, not just the police. They have to register very time the change jobs, in addition to every time they move! They have to provide e-mail addresses and any online identities.

One thing about it I note that shocks me is that while they REQUIRE you to register much more often than in California, they also charge all the SORs $20 every time to do the registration or any change to it! How can you charge someone for that, no matter how little an amount you might charge!?

I note, the judge ruled that even the mere length of time for the registration — 25 years — was excessive:

The judge said the state’s registration requirement was excessive and exceeded the time necessary to protect public safety. He cited studies that found the risk of a sex offender committing another sex crime drops significantly as he or she ages.

There are some concerns, but nonetheless, every one of us should be praying daily this decision is upheld in appeals!

Judge Hendricks has the courage in his position taking the oath to
protect and defend the Constitution for all…..NOT for some…for all…
its what I was saying ….the policy of spewing inaccurate and misleading
information cannot be public funded….massive waste of taxpayers
time money and what amounts to a whitewash sham……….forcing
people to be listed isn’t going to be your next “sex” crime to be from……
98 % or more will not have a new “sex” crime……….excessive punishment
Judge noted unconstitutional …Outstanding ..!